It was a Flop... February 2024 Disco. Thread

[NorEastermass128]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

It was clear on I 93...once I hit I 495, the snow cover is gone.

This area is so overdue for an AEMATT late bloomer.   It’s coming. Just probably not this winter. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

If by some miricale things look good for 2/24 by next Friday (2/23), we should meet up and weenie out to send the season out with a hurrah.

[CoastalWx]

Just now, 40/70 Benchmark said:

If by some miricale things look good for 2/24 by next Friday (2/23), we should meet up and weenie out to send the season out with a hurrah.

Centerfolds in the combat zone?

[40/70 Benchmark]

4 minutes ago, NorEastermass128 said:

This area is so overdue for an AEMATT late bloomer.   It’s coming. Just probably not this winter. 

It sucks you got boned 1/7 because I felt that was nice retribution for me....honestly one of the more enjoyable events of my life given that:

1) It over performed

2) I jack potted with 19"

3) First several inches were paste

4)I even had some OES and CF CJ for good measure...it was just an orgy of all of my fetishes wrapped into a neat bow.

[Layman]

1 hour ago, weatherwiz said:

 

Yup...understandable, and i get it regarding the politics of it. But IMO, if there is a great discussion going on with a back-and-forth of data, data interpretation, hypothesis/thesis, and arguments then it should be totally fine. If someone or people are going to throw a tantrum because what they're reading goes against their beliefs and cry for the discussion to stop then that is ridiculous. 

There are some on here who probably are involved in the work force or research where this topic is virtually their entire career and they should be able to elicit discussion. 

If people have a problem with discussing science...in any thread but have no problem tossing around sexual jokes and making sexual references I think we can see where the problem lies. 

It should be an easy and great discussion but there are so many moving parts to it, that it becomes tribal with one side pitted against the other.  The crux to me being, is the data accurate?  If it is, is it robust enough?  If these things can't be agreed upon, how do you have a productive discussion?  The politics comes in because "sides" and finances influence these things at all levels of government.  To believe otherwise is simply not being realistic.  The personal attacks come in because some believe their fellow man is actively causing what they perceive as a threat to their very existence.  If one believes humans are causing CC, they often propose and/or support ideas that prevent human activities they believe are contributing.  If one believes CC is naturally occurring and doesn't support those ideas, the two parties are diametrically opposed and "fight" to support their position and/or activities.  

So often these discussions carry the disclaimer of "I'm not denying it exists" or "that's not up for debate", etc yet there's still the declaration that "science" is being employed.  Seems to me that science left the chat some time ago.  As I mentioned the other day, people have faith in studies, data, etc but are they truly accurate?  Are they not influenced by any desired outcome, ideology, finances, etc?  Can you think of any examples involving data, studies or scientific ideas that ultimately proved to be inaccurate?  (Rhetorical questions)  Just because we're at humanity's current state-of-the-art doesn't mean we're infallible.  

Remember the Non-Fat Yogurt episode from Seinfeld?  That's a light-hearted example to make a point that many simply accept what's presented to them as being true.  Extrapolate that example out to the foods you buy in the grocery store or consume at a restaurant, the medicine you put in your body, the scientific data that should be unbiased, accurate and produced with integrity.  Are the ingredients accurately represented?  The studies rigorous enough to prove long-term safety?  The method(s) of testing robust and reliable?  We hope.  If these things are not accurate, what harms are being done acting on that inaccurate data?  

We assume that the data inputs the weather models ingest is accurate and reliable with no biases.  Pulled in essentially real-time and processed to output a possible solution mere hours into the future.  How does that work out?  How accurate are those outputs 6-12 hours into the future?  Point being that even with presumed accurate data from an immensely dynamic environment, the outcome can and does routinely deviate from what's expected.  Add in adjusted, manipulated or flat out inaccurate data and those deviations get further exaggerated.  

Anyway, I feel hungry for some non-fat yogurt...

[ChangeofSeasonsWX]

Even Portland, OR is having a better winter than us. The forecast for them was a dusting and instead they measured 10.8" at the airport! https://www.oregonlive.com/weather/2024/02/is-portland-facing-another-february-snow-storm.html

I wish that we would get a positive bust of that magnitude.

[KTBFFH1905]

6 minutes ago, Layman said:

It should be an easy and great discussion but there are so many moving parts to it, that it becomes tribal with one side pitted against the other.  The crux to me being, is the data accurate?  If it is, is it robust enough?  If these things can't be agreed upon, how do you have a productive discussion?  The politics comes in because "sides" and finances influence these things at all levels of government.  To believe otherwise is simply not being realistic.  The personal attacks come in because some believe their fellow man is actively causing what they perceive as a threat to their very existence.  If one believes humans are causing CC, they often propose and/or support ideas that prevent human activities they believe are contributing.  If one believes CC is naturally occurring and doesn't support those ideas, the two parties are diametrically opposed and "fight" to support their position and/or activities.  

So often these discussions carry the disclaimer of "I'm not denying it exists" or "that's not up for debate", etc yet there's still the declaration that "science" is being employed.  Seems to me that science left the chat some time ago.  As I mentioned the other day, people have faith in studies, data, etc but are they truly accurate?  Are they not influenced by any desired outcome, ideology, finances, etc?  Can you think of any examples involving data, studies or scientific ideas that ultimately proved to be inaccurate?  (Rhetorical questions)  Just because we're at humanity's current state-of-the-art doesn't mean we're infallible.  

Remember the Non-Fat Yogurt episode from Seinfeld?  That's a light-hearted example to make a point that many simply accept what's presented to them as being true.  Extrapolate that example out to the foods you buy in the grocery store or consume at a restaurant, the medicine you put in your body, the scientific data that should be unbiased, accurate and produced with integrity.  Are the ingredients accurately represented?  The studies rigorous enough to prove long-term safety?  The method(s) of testing robust and reliable?  We hope.  If these things are not accurate, what harms are being done acting on that inaccurate data?  

We assume that the data inputs the weather models ingest is accurate and reliable with no biases.  Pulled in essentially real-time and processed to output a possible solution mere hours into the future.  How does that work out?  How accurate are those outputs 6-12 hours into the future?  Point being that even with presumed accurate data from an immensely dynamic environment, the outcome can and does routinely deviate from what's expected.  Add in adjusted, manipulated or flat out inaccurate data and those deviations get further exaggerated.  

Anyway, I feel hungry for some non-fat yogurt...

Golf clap for working in the froyo Seinfeld episode. 

 

[CoastalWx]

3 minutes ago, ChangeofSeasonsWX said:

Even Portland, OR is having a better winter than us. The forecast for them was a dusting and instead they measured 10.8" at the airport! https://www.oregonlive.com/weather/2024/02/is-portland-facing-another-february-snow-storm.html

I wish that we would get a positive bust of that magnitude.

That was last season.

[ChangeofSeasonsWX]

Just now, CoastalWx said:

That was last season.

My mistake. But my point still stands. When was the last time we had a positive bust of that magnitude? 1978? 12/23/97 and 12/09/05 were good but not on that same magnitude. Id say we are overdue for one.

[40/70 Benchmark]

Looks like it would actually be a Friday into Fridya night deal.

[CoastalWx]

8 minutes ago, ChangeofSeasonsWX said:

My mistake. But my point still stands. When was the last time we had a positive bust of that magnitude? 1978? 12/23/97 and 12/09/05 were good but not on that same magnitude. Id say we are overdue for one.

Forecasting winter wx out there is really tough. They have more busts in different directions because of their unique geography. Models always mishandle how long KPDX stays below 32 with an east wind down the gorge.

[CoastalWx]

Even 2/20. That is a srn system, just waiting to come up the coast. But nrn stream just doesn't cooperate. 

[mahk_webstah]

26 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

If by some miricale things look good for 2/24 by next Friday (2/23), we should meet up and weenie out to send the season out with a hurrah.

I'll be in Boston on the 23rd and free until about 5:30 or 6 if anyone wants a happy hour drink.

[ORH_wxman]

What sucks for the 2/20 period is that the southern stream temporarily decided to go quite when we have the big PV sitting just to our north. 
 

In El Niño, once you have a PV to our north, you often get the big dog when the STJ amplifies into it…but instead, we have very little southern stream action until a few days later…which may produce something in the 2/23-24 timeframe but it’s more precarious by that point. 

[mahk_webstah]

Just now, CoastalWx said:

Even 2/20. That is a srn system, just waiting to come up the coast. But nrn stream just doesn't cooperate. 

Maybe Ray could do some sort of behavioral therapy with NS?

[ORH_wxman]

Just now, CoastalWx said:

Even 2/20. That is a srn system, just waiting to come up the coast. But nrn stream just doesn't cooperate. 

Yeah I just posted that after you…there’s just a weak wave down south…I was hoping to see something stronger in that period. A northern stream insert would’ve helped too. 

[CoastalWx]

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

Even 2/20. That is a srn system, just waiting to come up the coast. But nrn stream just doesn't cooperate. 

 

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

What sucks for the 2/20 period is that the southern stream temporarily decided to go quite when we have the big PV sitting just to our north. 
 

In El Niño, once you have a PV to our north, you often get the big dog when the STJ amplifies into it…but instead, we have very little southern stream action until a few days later…which may produce something in the 2/23-24 timeframe but it’s more precarious by that point. 

LOL, both looking at the same thing in anger. We sick fooks.

[ORH_wxman]

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

 

LOL, both looking at the same thing in anger. We sick fooks.

I mean, the longwave pattern is ripe during that time which is why we were interested it in even back to last week. Sucks we can’t get any timing right. But that’s how you go from a mere subpar winter to a rat. You miss on your windows of opportunity. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

11 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Even 2/20. That is a srn system, just waiting to come up the coast. But nrn stream just doesn't cooperate. 

Its just 2/24 for me and then I am over and out...onto the draft.

Kev can track the residual table scraps during Morch.

[40/70 Benchmark]

12 minutes ago, mahk_webstah said:

Maybe Ray could do some sort of behavioral therapy with NS?

My best clinical advice is to act on any suicidal ideation.

[Typhoon Tip]

16 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

 

LOL, both looking at the same thing in anger. We sick fooks.

What interesting is that the 20/21st was on our original list of 'next signals' when we were looking past the last system ( around the 10th or the 11th ..) but has since been routinely torpid ...showing as you suggest, features that could get it done but aren't being arranged to actually do so. I suppose it’s worth it to keep it on the radar as a possible late correction  

The 00z teleon projections ( fwiw - ) are tightly agreed cross guidance, for a 20th PNA spike ... then a hint of one around the 24th ...

  ...after which the PNA craters beyond the 25th.  That warm signal is intense considering the range and cross guidance/conceptual confidence methods...Jeez.   

We may go from two Charlie Browns to CC-happy headline if things break just wrongly enough.   But, seeing as those same ens sources have a closed cyclone up in our region for the 24th...  maybe we salvage one of them.

[mahk_webstah]

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

My best clinical advice is to act on any suicidal ideation.

don't we want the opposite?  more extroverted, reaching out to others, making friends, building bridges, forming new bonds, slowing down and really coming together?

[Damage In Tolland]

8 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Its just 2/24 for me and then I am over and out...onto the draft.

Kev can track the residual table scraps during Morch.

Don’t think they’ll be any snow at all in Morch . Looks like baby brother of 2012.. at least at this point. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, mahk_webstah said:

don't we want the opposite?  more extroverted, reaching out to others, making friends, building bridges, forming new bonds, slowing down and really coming together?

Its already demonstrated enough anti social tendencies that I would just assume see it get out of the s stream's way.

[Patrick-02540]

36 minutes ago, Layman said:

It should be an easy and great discussion but there are so many moving parts to it, that it becomes tribal with one side pitted against the other.  The crux to me being, is the data accurate?  If it is, is it robust enough?  If these things can't be agreed upon, how do you have a productive discussion?  The politics comes in because "sides" and finances influence these things at all levels of government.  To believe otherwise is simply not being realistic.  The personal attacks come in because some believe their fellow man is actively causing what they perceive as a threat to their very existence.  If one believes humans are causing CC, they often propose and/or support ideas that prevent human activities they believe are contributing.  If one believes CC is naturally occurring and doesn't support those ideas, the two parties are diametrically opposed and "fight" to support their position and/or activities.  

So often these discussions carry the disclaimer of "I'm not denying it exists" or "that's not up for debate", etc yet there's still the declaration that "science" is being employed.  Seems to me that science left the chat some time ago.  As I mentioned the other day, people have faith in studies, data, etc but are they truly accurate?  Are they not influenced by any desired outcome, ideology, finances, etc?  Can you think of any examples involving data, studies or scientific ideas that ultimately proved to be inaccurate?  (Rhetorical questions)  Just because we're at humanity's current state-of-the-art doesn't mean we're infallible.  

Remember the Non-Fat Yogurt episode from Seinfeld?  That's a light-hearted example to make a point that many simply accept what's presented to them as being true.  Extrapolate that example out to the foods you buy in the grocery store or consume at a restaurant, the medicine you put in your body, the scientific data that should be unbiased, accurate and produced with integrity.  Are the ingredients accurately represented?  The studies rigorous enough to prove long-term safety?  The method(s) of testing robust and reliable?  We hope.  If these things are not accurate, what harms are being done acting on that inaccurate data?  

We assume that the data inputs the weather models ingest is accurate and reliable with no biases.  Pulled in essentially real-time and processed to output a possible solution mere hours into the future.  How does that work out?  How accurate are those outputs 6-12 hours into the future?  Point being that even with presumed accurate data from an immensely dynamic environment, the outcome can and does routinely deviate from what's expected.  Add in adjusted, manipulated or flat out inaccurate data and those deviations get further exaggerated.  

Anyway, I feel hungry for some non-fat yogurt...

Non-fat yogurt???  Yuck!  Food is another area HIGHLY politicized.  Reminds me of the "absolute certitude" the scientific community had from the 1970s through about 2020 that saturated fats and meat were bad for humans.  So they replaced good fats with sugars and seed oils, which are both now proven to be the causative agents of inflammation, which leads to arthrosclerosis, dementia, cancers, and all manner of metabolic disease.  The saturated fat was simply showing up (carried by an LDL particle) to repair the damage from the sugars and polyunsaturated fats.  To this day, about 85% of family doctors have no clue, and continue to suggest low animal fat, high seed-oil, high-carb diets for sick patients. But thankfully that narrative is being chipped away at with the release of more and more blinded clinical trials showing exactly the opposite. 

[ChangeofSeasonsWX]

The funny thing about CC is that everyone expects it to create more extremes with the weather, but in actuality this is not always the case. If anything it seems like CC is moderating our climate. I mean, look at the 1970s. That was probably one of the most extreme decades in the weather database for heat, cold, and snow. PVD's third coldest ever temperature of -13F on 01/23/76. How about their 30 degree positive departure on 04/19/76, when PVD hit 98F? Or 08/02/75 when PVD reached an insane 104F with a dewpoint of 77F? Not only did that day have all-time record heat but also absurd dew point readings. What about the once in a 500 year snowstorm on 05/09/77 that dropped 7.0" in PVD? That decade also had some insane 24 hour temperature drops. 02/02/76 went from 51F to 5F and if you want to include Christmas 1980 just for the heck of it since it was close to the 70s, PVD went from 35F to -10F that day. Not to mention the blizzard of 78 of course during that decade. Why were the 1970s in particular so extreme around here and we haven't broken these records since then?

[dryslot]

Don’t poke the bear, Trails are surprisingly good for what there is, Rode 41 mi so far 

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, ChangeofSeasonsWX said:

The funny thing about CC is that everyone expects it to create more extremes with the weather, but in actuality this is not always the case. If anything it seems like CC is moderating our climate. I mean, look at the 1970s. That was probably one of the most extreme decades in the weather database for heat, cold, and snow. PVD's third coldest ever temperature of -13F on 01/23/76. How about their 30 degree positive departure on 04/19/76, when PVD hit 98F? Or 08/02/75 when PVD reached an insane 104F with a dewpoint of 77F? Not only did that day have all-time record heat but also absurb dew point readings. What about the once in a 500 year snowstorm on 05/09/77 that dropped 7.0" in PVD? That decade also had some insane 24 hour temperature drops. 02/02/76 went from 51F to 5F and if you want to include Christmas 1980 just for the heck of it since it was close to the 70s, PVD went from 35F to -10F that day. Not to mention the blizzard of 78 of course during that decade. Why were the 1970s in particular so extreme around here and we haven't broken these records since then?

It moderates our climate in the mean, but there are more extremes. Just about all of the warmest winters have been in the past 15 yeaes, but so haven't most of our worst blizzards.

[Brian5671]

14 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Don’t think they’ll be any snow at all in Morch . Looks like baby brother of 2012.. at least at this point. 

2012 was great once we all accepted it wasn't coming.    Morch had a couple days in the 80's here and the month as a whole was warm sunny and dry.   I'll take it again

[ChangeofSeasonsWX]

2 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

It moderates our climate in the mean, but there are more extremes. Just about all of the warmest winters have been in the past 15 yeaes, but so haven't most of our worst blizzards.

So the 70s were just a fluke? Our temperature extremes nowadays definitely seem moderated compared to what we saw in the 70s which had lots of all-time heat and cold records.